Carry at Work

[manta49]

I would look at it from a risk point of view and not some rights protest. You are much more likely to be killed in a work related accident than not having a firearm. If your workplace is the army then having a firearm is a good idea if you work in Disney land I don't think it would be as important.

Worker Injuries, illnesses and fatalities

4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 (3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers)—almost 90 a week or nearly 13 deaths every day.

 

[Tom Servo]

On the other hand, if all prospective employees who object to such policies were to vote with their feet, companies might begin to wake up to the recognition that they are giving up qualified employees over a basically useless, feel-good, CYA policy that ultimately accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting workplace safety.

As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.

Walkouts wouldn't work either. There just aren't enough of us in a position to have an impact on corporations or human resource departments to the point they question their policies. In fact, many would simply say, "well, Bob seemed like a bad apple anyway. We're best rid of him."

The antis beat us to the punch with this 25 years or so ago. They convinced human resources types that a gun in the workplace is a ticking time bomb. How do we reverse that? I'm not sure, but a change in perception like that will likely be slow and on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Tom is correct - look at the demographics and numbers of CC types. The numbers are not impressive to an employer.

 

[OuTcAsT]

44AMP Wrote;

I think the integrity issue is not about disobeying an immoral (in your view) order, but about whether or not you lie about disobeying it. And I think that also includes lying to yourself.

This is the point. If you cannot be true to yourself, then you have no "moral compass" by which to gauge any other "moral" issue.

 

[BigD_in_FL]

IF you choose to go to work for a company and they have rules - no matter the subject matter - then you need to obey them. NO one held a gun to your head and said you must work for them - if they have rules you just can't live with, you are free to go to work elsewhere

This is no different if they prohibit sandals and mandate steel-toed shoes instead, or say no drinking on the job or they won't hire a smoker - their house, their rules. Don't like them? Go elsewhere or start your own business

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.

Walkouts wouldn't work either. There just aren't enough of us in a position to have an impact on corporations or human resource departments to the point they question their policies. In fact, many would simply say, "well, Bob seemed like a bad apple anyway. We're best rid of him."

Tom, you are probably 100 percent correct. That said ...

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

In other words -- ya can't win if ya don't even try.

Nonetheless, I completely recognize that whether or not to quit (or decline) a paying job over a matter of principle is a highly personal decision. Which means, for those who would not have chosen as I did, that my decision may be different from yours but that doesn't make my decision "wrong."

 

[WyMark]

I guess I think the whole notion that a policy that you personally define as "immoral" is therefore one that you can simply ignore is flat out ridiculous. It's disingenuous and hypocritical and you are lying to yourself to rationalize your own immoral behavior. It is, simply, a complete and total lack of personal integrity.

I can't carry at work, therefore I don't. I don't like the policy, and want to change it. But I won't just ignore it simply because I think I have some moral high ground and am doing the "right" thing. If I couldn't abide by the policy of my workplace, I'd find somewhere else to work. I guess it's a personal integrity thing, and I don't try to bend the definition of honesty and integrity to meet my peculiar definition of morality.

 

[Koda94]

As Glenn pointed out, we simply have no precedent for that. I doubt a court would find an employer liable.

Now, that said, let's consider an example on the other side of the spectrum. An employer allows or encourages employee carry on the job. Imagine Bob running the cash register on third shift.

I should clarify my original question, there are lots of ways to write a workplace violence policy that does not have to specifically allow or encourage carrying weapons nor specifically prohibit it. Its really about safety here and any action that can be deemed unsafe, dangerous, threatening can be cause for termination which can even include "displaying or use of weapons". There are lots of ways to write the policy.

As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.

This is where I land in this whole scenario. A bit over a year ago I was laid off due to a budget cut. I saw it coming and was somewhat prepared and got by but my job search was depressing but I got one and was oh so thankful to sign the gun free zone policy. I didn't have to lose my home in fact making more money than the last job we've pulled ahead and I can provide for my family. FWIW I follow the policy but not so much for my integrity as it is I cant afford to not work right now... I'm not in a position to challenge the situation.

 

[GEARHEAD_ENG]

We had an issue at a place I used to work where a woman's estranged husband threatened to come into her work and shoot everyone. There wasn't a no-gun policy at the time (I think they still allow conseal carry actually) . One of the employees had some family "connections" who pulls in with a black Lincoln and armed everyone in the building (think we had about 40 employees at the time). That's one way to prevent mass shootings.

 

[Tom Servo]

One of the employees had some family "connections" who pulls in with a black Lincoln and armed everyone in the building

I don't think that's really a practical option for other companies and situations.

If just one of those employees had an ND, shot the wrong person, or shot for the wrong reasons, the owner and the driver of the Lincoln could have been held criminally liable. That is the exact situation corporations had in mind when they passed policies banning guns.

 

[RX-79G]

While I understand all the arguments offered, I'm perplexed why the word "morality" is thrown around. Morals are personal - you might share them with other people in your culture, but they are yours alone to have and either adhere to or violate. If you don't think what you're doing is immoral, it isn't.

Integrity speaks more to the problem - if you imply that you are going to follow a set of rules and you don't, then anyone who questions your integrity wouldn't be wrong.

I don't think it makes sense with something like violating rules (or even laws) to worry about what that says about you as a person. Your feelings on the matter trump anyone else's. If you have a good reason to break the rules and are okay with the consequences of doing so, that's all that needs to be said.

Most of what I've read in this thread are justifications for breaking the rules. Either break the rules and live with that, or don't. Attempting to justify it won't change what you've done or change a bad decision into a good one because you've played a philosophical game in your mind.



As far as Aguila's experience goes, it sounds like he's the victim of gender discrimination, being forced to work at a more dangerous hour than his female colleagues. That's illegal.

 

[KyJim]

I guess I think the whole notion that a policy that you personally define as "immoral" is therefore one that you can simply ignore is flat out ridiculous. It's disingenuous and hypocritical and you are lying to yourself to rationalize your own immoral behavior. It is, simply, a complete and total lack of personal integrity.

So I suppose abolitionists were immoral and lacking in personal integrity when they ran the underground railroad before the Civil War in violation of the laws of slave holding states?

I am not going to turn this into a religious discussion but think about religious leaders who broke laws for justifiable reasons. If you're Christian, think of Jesus breaking a good number of laws, such as healing on the Sabbath.

While I am a "rules follower" by nature, there are times when breaking rules is justified. The law even acknowledges this. Breaking the speed limit to get someone in cardiac arrest to a hospital justifies the violation. Self-defense is another form of justification.

Now, I do think that agreeing to a policy and then violating it is normally an integrity issue. You are giving your word and then breaking it. However, merely acknowledging that you have received notice of an employer's policy does not mean you have given your word to follow it. Of course, you have to live with the consequences if you violate it.

 

[44 AMP]

Morals are personal - you might share them with other people in your culture, but they are yours alone to have and either adhere to or violate. If you don't think what you're doing is immoral, it isn't.

So what word do you use to describe the commonly held values of a society or group? Things like rape, murder, child molestation, etc., are considered immoral by most of us, hence their illegality. SO if you feel morals are personal, only, what tern do you use for the group "morality"?

I don't think it makes sense with something like violating rules (or even laws) to worry about what that says about you as a person. Your feelings on the matter trump anyone else's. If you have a good reason to break the rules and are okay with the consequences of doing so, that's all that needs to be said.

I believe the word often used to describe a person like you just did is sociopath. I may be wrong on the word, but behavior like what you describe is classic, the basic justification for all criminal, and immoral acts. "I can do what ever I want, because I want, and I'm ok with that" is the rule of the jungle, is it not?

 

[RX-79G]

44Amp,

Ah, no. I wasn't suggesting that everyone do whatever you want. But very few individuals share identical mores of behavior or their reasons for having them.

My post was to point out that the choices you make are your own. No appeal to a higher "moral power" absolves you of that responsibility.

I'm much more disturbed by people who break the rules using some convenient philosophy to dump the blame on.

Rigid morals are a crutch for people who can't decide right from wrong on their own. Sociopaths don't care about doing right at all.

 

[Gbnk82]

Depends on the work envirnment imo..if you work in a large office in a nice area and have nothing worth taking (i.e money valuables goods) then why not obey there policy leave it in your car and dont risk your job..on the other hand if you work graveyard at a convienent store in a bad neighborhood i say to hell with there policy id rather be alive and unemployed than dead knowing atleast i "followed the rules". All in all though if you can legally carry and choose to at work more power to you you are not breaking any laws.

 

[zxcvbob]

I believe the word often used to describe a person like you just did is sociopath. I may be wrong on the word, but behavior like what you describe is classic, the basic justification for all criminal, and immoral acts. "I can do what ever I want, because I want, and I'm ok with that" is the rule of the jungle, is it not?

I left a reply to this last night and it's gone now; not sure why it was deleted.

You left out the part where the one ignoring the rule is okay with accepting the consequences. There is a proud history of civil disobedience in this country, and I find your use of the word "sociopath" offensive in this context.
__________________
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." --Thoreau

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Rigid morals are a crutch for people who can't decide right from wrong on their own.

No, that describes rigid adherence to rules or laws, not rigid morals. The fact that someone may have stricter or laxer morals than you doesn't mean that person either can't decide right from wrong on his/her own, or has no moral compass whatsoever ... it only means that person has chosen differently from you.

Regardless of how strict your moral code is, a personal moral code is based in personal choice and is not backed by force of any law (although it may or may not coincide closely with adopted law. It may also be stricter than adopted law). On the other hand, abdicating decision and just following the laws because it's easier than making a morality-based value judgment (example: zero tolerance school rules that punish the victim of an assault as severely as the assailant) is a crutch.

 

[bt380]

When you hire in, you accept the conditions. If you accept the conditions, it is your responsibility to abide by them. You will know within a few weeks whether or not you want to keep the job or move on.
-
The rub is having a job and then a new wave of managers come in and makes new rules. Once again the decision to leave is still there, but now the loss of time, any pay raises, and potential retirement pensions com into play.
-
If you get caught violating company policy, you end up fired (lost pension). You lose a paycheck instantly and have to deal with rent, etc You may have a record which will prevent future good jobs. You will have to go thru hoops to get unemployment, which they may deny.
-
Lots of variable to consider. Consider where you work. If they tend to have shootings, you may want to leave anyway. If they have never had a shooting, may be adjust perspective and go with the odds. The odds are safe at work than on the road that we take for granite every time use a cell phone, go over the limit, etc etc. Pick anything else we do and apply the same logic.
-
If married, X10 the effects of violating policy. If kids, X100. If both, really evaluate the need and maybe suck it up.
-
I use to be an emt after I retired from the military, you are placed in crazy situations some times because or you and your partner missed the clues, you hope you get out safe. No guns there either. Think of the number of crazy people out there an why you carry and try to avoid those places. The medics go into that frequently with "THOSE" people.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I might suggest that the views of moral theory expressed here are folk wisdom. There is a philosophical and psychological literature on morality.

A few reads into Wikipedia might focus the folk theories. It is easy to say you would do XY or Z. It is also well known that verbal expression of moral virtue may have little correlation with actual behavior.

 

[thallub]

If you work for a company then be loyal to that organization. If you cannot abide by the company rules then quit.

After repeated warnings, i fired two employees of my company for carrying concealed weapons on US Army bases against the rules. Those guys jeopardized my contracts with the US Army.